Summary
An imputation that a person is gay or is in a same-sex relationship is not, without more, defamatory at common law. The test is whether the publication would substantially adversely affect the claimant’s reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society generally, rather than a particular cultural, religious or social section. The domestic legal framework and modern judicial decisions demonstrate a fundamental change in societal attitudes. A publication must also arguably refer to the claimant when read as a whole by the hypothetical reasonable reader. A strikingly similar photograph does not suffice where the article’s detailed identifying information points to another person and the photograph could reasonably be understood as an error. Serious harm requires evidence of practical reputational impact within the jurisdiction.
Factual background
The claimant brought a defamation claim concerning a Guardian article about the murder of a gay Afghan medical student. The article was accompanied by a photograph which the claimant said depicted him, although the text identified the person depicted as Hamed Sabouri. The claimant alleged meanings that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that he was homosexual and had been in a relationship with another man.
The defendant applied for strike-out and summary judgment on several grounds, including defamatory meaning, reference, serious harm, limitation, abuse of process and defective service. The central issues were whether the pleaded meanings were capable of being defamatory, whether the publication arguably referred to the claimant, and whether the procedural objections required disposal of the claim.
Held
- Outcome. Summary judgment was entered for the defendant. The claim form and particulars of claim were struck out, and the action was dismissed.
- Defamatory meaning. Applying the common-law test in Monroe v Hopkins, a statement is defamatory only if it tends substantially adversely to affect the claimant’s reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society generally. The court rejected reliance on the views of particular sections of society or on the Afghanistan Penal Code 2018. The domestic legal framework, including the decriminalisation of private homosexual acts, protection against sexual-orientation discrimination, recognition of same-sex relationships and judicial decisions requiring equal respect and dignity, demonstrated a seismic change in societal attitudes. An imputation that a person is gay or is in a same-sex relationship was therefore not defamatory without an additional allegation such as hypocrisy, dishonesty or homophobic conduct.
- Reference. The article, read as a whole in accordance with Koutsogiannis v Random House Group and Dyson v Channel Four, clearly concerned Hamed Sabouri, who was named and described as dead. A reasonable reader acquainted with the claimant would not treat the photograph as sufficient to identify him as the subject of the article’s imputations. The reasonable alternatives were that the photograph depicted Mr Sabouri, who resembled the claimant, or that it had been included in error.
- Serious harm. The claimant had no real prospect of establishing serious reputational harm within the jurisdiction. His asserted fear of the Taliban and decision to go into hiding were subjective fears, not particulars demonstrating serious harm to reputation by publication in this jurisdiction.
- Other procedural issues. The limitation defence was not suitable for summary disposal because the claimant had a real prospect of showing that the claim form lodged on 11 October 2023 was the form subsequently issued, within the limitation period. The court also refused to declare that it lacked jurisdiction because particulars of claim had been served late. That defect could be addressed by an extension, alternative service, dispensation or relief from sanctions, although such applications had become futile after the substantive dismissal.
The court’s approach to earlier authorities
Available to signed-in members.
Appellate history
First-instance decision. No prior decision in the same proceedings is stated.
Key cases cited
25 authorities cited.
- Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd and another [2019] UKSC 27
- Bull and another v Hall and another [2013] UKSC 73
- HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and one other action [2010] UKSC 31
- Ghaidan (Appellant) v. Godin-Mendoza (FC) (Respondent) [2004] UKHL 30
- Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd [2001] 1 AC 27
- Dyson Technology Limited v Channel Four Television Corporation [2023] EWCA Civ 884
- Zehour Chelfat v Hutchinson 3G UK Limited [2022] EWCA Civ 455
- Dow Jones & Co Inc v Jameel [2005] EWCA Civ 75
- David Paisley v Graham Linehan [2024] EWHC 1976 (KB)
- Tahir Alam v Guardian News and Media Limited [2023] EWHC 2847 (KB)
- ANAR MAHMUDOV v MARIA LUISA GONI SANZBERRO [2021] EWHC 3433 (QB)
- Koutsogiannis v The Random House Group Ltd [2019] EWHC 48 (QB)
- Monroe v Hopkins [2018] EWHC 433 (QB)
- Brown v Bower & Anor [2017] EWHC 2637 (QB)
- Venulum Property Investments Ltd v Space Architecture Ltd & Ors [2013] EWHC 1242 (TCC)
- Yonaty v Mincolla 97 AD 3d 141
- Stern v Cosby 645 F Supp 2d 258 (SDNY 2009)
- Albright v Morton 321 F Supp 2d 130 (D Mass 2004)
- John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Rivkin 2003) 201 Aust LR 77 (HC
- Rivkin v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 432 (SC)
- Smith and Grady v United Kingdom (2000) 29 EHRR 493
- Quilty v Windsor [1999] SLT 346
- Prophit v BBC [1997] SLT 745
- Kerr v Kennedy [1942] 1 KB 409
- Tolley v J S Fry and Sons Ltd [1930] 1 KB 467
Sign in to see how the court treated each authority. A free account is enough.
Cases citing this case
Available to signed-in members.